it's of a piece. the demonization of people who believe in the second amendment. the demonization of people who believe in limited government and a government that represents we, the people, and not we, the elites. and i really think that it's archaic and dinosaur-like of folks like sam donaldson who have long been out of power. i mean we broke the liberal media monopoly years ago, and this is really their death row call, not ours. thanks, sam. >> good to see you. thank you for being with us. happy new year. >> you bet. >> that's all the time we have left for the special fiscal cliff edition of hannity. thanks for being with us. let not your heart be troubled because the news continues and greta is standing by to go live on the record. greta, take it away.illy. the factor. captioned by closed captioning services, inc. >> the o'reilly factor is on. tonight. >> this is something within our

capacity to solve. call me a hopeless optimist but i still think we can get it done. >> as the nation comes closer to the edge the chances of a fiscal cliff deal begin to doom. what will it mean for you? >> the administration essentially enacting legislation on its own through you regulation. a lot of them i think are illegal and unconstitutional. >> barack obama ramping up plans for a second term despite harsh criticism from opponents. what can we expect in the next four years? >> from the moment we met ben outside of st. peter's, russia, we fell in love. >> and tensions escalate between the u.s. and russia after putin tells americans he won't let them adopt russian children. could this be the start of a new cold war? caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone and "the

factor" begins right now. ♪ >> laura: thanks for watching us tonight. late yesterday, supreme court justice sonia sotomayor denied an appeal to temporarily delay the obama care contraception mandate. it requires workers health benefit plans to cover the morning after pill and other emergency contraceptions. in september is, hobby lobby a chain of more than 500 arts and crafts stores and its sister company of christian themed book stores sued the government claiming it violated the religious rights of the company's other thans, evangelical christians. they requested emergency relief from the emergency contraception mandate after a

lower court denied their request for a religious exemption. the into you rule goes into effect on new year's day. although sotomayor didn't rule on the marities of the case her refusal to grant a temporary stay of the hhs contra isception rule is onerous. starting next week the company will either have to pay a daily fine of $1.3 million or stop offering their employees healthcare, or abide by the rule and violate their religious conscience. now, it is worth noteing that when she sat on o the second circuit court of appeals, judge sotomayor ruled in favor of the religious rights of a muslim inmate who was denied a ramadan meal in prison. she was asked about that case and the religious liberty issue at her confirmation hearing. >> it is a very important and central part of our democratic

society that we do give freedom of religion, of practice of religion, that the constitution restricts the establish -- the state from establishing a religion and that we have freedom of expression in speech as well. those freedoms are central to our constitution. >> laura: i agree and don't religious people who own o companies also religious rights? turns out as many feared the president's religious exemption to the contraception mandate is so narrow as to be meaningless. unless you you employ and serve only those of your same religious faith you don't receive an exemption. so under that standard, jesus himself would not qualify. the little sisters of the poor a saintly order of nuns who give beautiful care and housing

to our nation's indigent seniors have already warnd that due to the obama care mandate they may have is to shutter their homes all across the united states which would be he a tragedy. this is uncon objectionable and unconstitutional. the president can and must step in to stop this madness and that is the memo. we'll have more on this story later not the program. now, the top story tonight, we are just days away going over the fiscal cliff. and the chance of a deal before the new year is slim. so now each side is pointing fingers instead of hammering out a deal. >> republicans aren't about to write a blank check for are anything senate democrats put forward just because we find ourselves at the edge of the cliff. >> any time the speaker and the republican leader come to the president and say we have got a deal for you, the president's door is always open and mine is, too. >> laura: and according to a

brand new rasmussen poll, 44% think that republicans are more to blame for not going far enough on tax increases. 36% say that obama is more to blame for not agreeing to more spending cuts and 15% blame both sides. joining us now from new york, julie riganski, a democratic strategist and here in washington, steven moore, a member of the "wall street journal" editorial board. sesteven, let's start with you. great to hear harry reid on this. the last time i checked the do so called proposal that a he put forth in july didn't really receive any support and only dealt with tax increases. it wasn't a comprehensive deal and didn't involve real spending cuts it was just raise tax and it went no where. for him to blame republicans, come on. >> don't forget, it has been 13 hyundais since hair arery reid even passed a budget out of the united states senate. we don't even know what the

united states senators stand for in terms of the budget debate. the same thing on taxes. the house actually passed a lot of people don't know that earlier this year the house passed a bill to extend all of the bush era tax cuts for another year until resolve the issue. the senate again didn't act on that. the grave yard of the items are the united states senate. the other thing interesting harry reid said the president has his door open to any negotiating in any kind of deal that the republicans may offer. they put revenues on the table which a lot of conservatives weren't happy with. now, talking about raising tax rates and the president still has not to this day, five or six weeks after election he has still not, laura, put a inning single major item on the table. that is the problem. >> laura: you can respond to

stephen. true that john boehner didn't help with the plan bfiasco. stephen is right, isn't he not about harry reid, the idea that he is leading is farcicle. >> they did pass legislation to ensure that taxes wouldn't go up on anybody making $250,000. the senate actually passed legislation. >> laura: there were no spending cuts in that, though. >> the budget control act had $1.5 trillion in spending cuts already approved. so say that the senate hasn't approved spending cuts in the last congress is not true. the problem is this and i feel bad for john boehner if you were obama you don't know who to negotiate with. even with john boehner were to come to obama with a deal, john boehner is being held host and by members of his own caucus

who won't let him do that. boehner can work with democrats to get it passnd and throw some of his support with the democrats to get it passed but the problem for john boehner is he has an election coming up for his own leadership position on january 3 and he is afraid to do that. >> laura: again, and i understand why julie is saying this because the republicans don't have a ton of leverage here, stephen. >> they don't. >> they have very little leverage. >> all of the taxes go up, lawyer, a as you know, on january 2. >> is it that bad for president obama if we go over the cliff, oh, throw the nation into recession and lose all these jobs but he views everything through a political lens does he not? >> he does. >> laura: i think they made the calculation this won't hurt them one bit and they have gotten the peg on the tea he party and boehner or something. >> the president has said that by the way of the negotiations and john boehner made the statement the other day that the president says look unless you give it my way i will bash you in the inauguration speech. but i want to ask a question to

you. i mean why can't we simply we are at the edge of this cliff. every economist agrees that will do serious harm to the economy if we don't get an agreement. why doesn't the president agree to a six month extension on the current tax rates and work this out next year and what is so hard about that? let's put the economy over politics here. >> because the whole fiscal cliff which is a manufactured cliff essentially by both houses of congress happened because they tried to do that last year and said let's give ourselves another arbitrary deadline. you know six months from now we will be right back where we started from. that is the problem. >> laura: we are are almost out of time. but the democratic senate refuses to pass a budget. won't do it. can't do it. the president couldn't get a sing the vote for his own budget. the idea he is going to rush in from vacation and be the caped crusader rescuing us all from fiscal doom is absurd. a razzle dazzle spin move.

even matt damon is giving up. >> that is just -- that is the most depress end to a segment i have h heard in my life. >> laura: we are out of time, guys. my goodness. someone has to lead at some point. >> i have my crash helmet on. we are going over the cliff. >> laura: next, a civil war among republicans in congress. will speaker benito survive the revolt? and later, president obama in the next four years. what will his second term mean for you and your family? we wil

speaker of the house john boehner failed last week to pass a fiscal cliff pill after pushback from some conservatives. now, speculation that he might be pushed off the political cliff and be kicked out of the top job in the house.

joining us now from nashville, republican strategist chip saltz mapp and here in the studio with me, anthony holmes. also a republican strategist. i first started hearing of this a couple of weeks ago. i know john boehner and like him a lot. people are oh, we lost the election, time to to something. how to there is this supposed mini revolt. anything to this? >> looks like there could be. the greater thing is it is philosophically disengine with us to spend 8 months telling americans that tax increases hurt the economy and turning around 8 weeks later after the ehe election and offering to surrender a one year debt ceiling pore tore yum and increase taxes under the guise of helping the economy. philosophical. >> laura: the reality, though,

anthony is that they lost the election in november. so the taxes are going go up. i mean the idea that -- taxes going to go up on obama care and a bunch of other taxes kick in and cost of living going up. the pragmatic rehe action would be in an a perfect world there would be no tax increases. going to happen one way or another. your point is he should stick to principle and go over the cliff. >> that is why he got elected by his body and in his district. we kept the house. the taxing authority. we have the constitutional authority and duty to go in there and tax and spend and create that budget. also we beat up obama and rightly so for the lack of transparency in the obama care debate and we are having four people negotiate the budget. put it back into paul ryan's hands and let's lead. >> i heard paul ryan's name mentioned. of course, his office, don't look at us. we support boehner. but look, if there was some

revolt, if this thing is real and people will start mentioning ryan and it builds and builds and builds, i mean would he be somebody who said no to that? >> i think he would say no very quick. he might have other plans perhapses in 2016 and running for speaker, win, lose or draw would be bad for all those plans. i consider are this rahmer to be a three beer rumor which is after about the third beer people like we should replace boehner and that sounds like a good idea and repeat that enough and then it becomes a rumor. look, the staff i talked to on the hill, even the members i talked to and even the members against boehner on plan b there is no true conversation to replace john boehner as speaker right now. >> laura: wouldn't that also be, chip, you you can stay on this, wouldn't that look disasterrous for republicans in the middle of the fiscal cliff thing they throw boehner over the edge or start the process for removing boehner? seems if anything, again, as a pragmatic matter that even maybe hurts the republicans

more or is it right? is anthony right that you are going to lose ground anyway so you might as well stick to your first principles and look at what happened to george h.w. bush after he went back on his tax no tax pledge. >> if he can't lead and offer solutions he probably shouldn't be there. there is a great game as to if not he, who. that is a fair question. these things happen fast. i'm not saying that it will. the only people that can really counter are the 435 members in there. they know what is happening on the inside. >> laura: what should he do? >> offer a solution. >> laura: what solution? he tried to offer. >> offer a bold solution and go out to america and debate it and don't do secret meetings. we had two years of simpson bowles and knew this was coming. debate the concepts with america and continue debating them. >> laura: don't worry about the fiscal cliff. >> push us off. we may need it. we need a 30% slash across the board to get in the black. we need it or we don't.

>> laura: this is a drop in the bucket in the end. if republicans are blamed anyway. bush is being blamed for the bad economy in the last election still. better to get back on principle here and stick to first principles if you are still a conservative party and still believe that. if you don't believe that you better tell the american people you are okay for some tax increases. >> no question about that. one thing we learned we will get blamed no matter happens. the republicans in the house passed 30 jobs bills and sent them to the senate where they died and passed a budget every year. sent it to the senate and died and they get no credit for that. no matter what happens they will blame us. we learned that lesson well over the last two years. >> laura: thanks so much. and directly ahead, barack obama mapping out plans for his second term. how far left will the president take the country? we will have a debate. later on, more on supreme court justice sonia sotomayor's

refusal to block the contraception is mandate from taking effect even temporarily. what are the implications of >> announcer: stop! living with hair loss, that is. losing your hair is no fun and no one wants to be bald, but there is hope. >> getting my hair back was the best thing that ever happened to me. >> i'm happy with the way i look now. >> i'm very excited about my hair. >> i feel beautiful. >> i love my hair. >> announcer: hair club offers all-proven hair loss solutions backed by our commitment to satisfaction guaranteed. if you're not 100% satisfied with the solution you choose, hair club will apply the purchase price to another proven hair loss solution or transplant more hair at no charge. >> and that was the best thing i've ever done. >> it looks good on me. >> announcer: call in the next five minutes to get your free brochure at no obligation. it will tell you everything you need to know about your hair loss problem, and it's free if you call now. >> i am more pleased than what i had even imagined. >> i at least look, i would say, five years younger. >> i'm 52 and i look better now than i did when i was in my 40s. >> i feel great. >> announcer: and that's not all! the first 100 people who call will also receive $250 off any

hair loss solution from hair club. call now! [♪...]

>> laura: in the unresolved problem segment tonight. now, that president obama has returned from his christmas vacation in hawaii, speculation is beginning to mount about his

second term plans. who will make up the cabinet? and just how far left will his agenda be? according to a new cnn poll, 46% expect the president to do a better job the next four years. 31% expect about the same. 22% expect mr. obama to perform worse than in his first term. despite the warm and fuzzy poll numbers some of the president's critics are crying foul over how he enacts his policies. >> the administration essentially enacting ledge legislation through its own through regulation with the dream act and stripping away the work requirement in reform of welfare. so all of these things happen unilaterally. a lot of them i think are actually illegal and unconstitutional but if they are, they are incredibly destructive of small business. >> can we ex-he peck more of the same in the president's

second term? here a former member of george w. bush senior staff and simon rosenberg. start with you you mr. center left think tank. good to see you you. >> good to be here. >> laura: a lot of worry and anxiety about the economy and so worth but a lot of anxiety in the business community because of the regulations pending longer than the 90 day period which is supposed to per collate in the administrative law system. a billion plus for rear view camera backup mirrors and things toind people from hybrid vehicles. all sorts of things. some might be quite worthy but nonetheless he does push through a lot by executive fiat and other rule making does he not? >> i don't think that is the preferred way of going. i think the president wished he had a better partner in congress than he has had over the last couple of years and i think you will see him, look, he comes out of the election

strong. republicans haven't seen a president this strong since fdr. i think the president is going be aggressive and try to push his agenda. >> carbon tax? >> we know that we will see a lot. he committed to trying to do something meaningful in the deficit. >> laura: did you you say meaningful in the deficit. wait a second. i have an audio problem. a what? >> i'm sure brad will correct me when comes up. you will see efforts on immigration reform and gun control and the biggest trade deal in the last generation. the pivot to asia and other foreign policy. >> laura: going to do all this by eg executive decision becaue last time i checkle he still had a republican house. >> stop the extraordinary fiscal cliff negotiations and go back to regular order and pass a real budget and provide

an alternative. >> laura: the democrats also might take that advice to pass a budget. >> stop the games and go back to committee process and let paul ryan do his job and have the big debate. >> let's go to you brad on this. i say this to my republican friends. though are all upset he will do executive fiat and rule making. elections have consequences the old cliche quicks in and it is clear that the president s aggressive and he will use every means at his dice posal and if republicans don't like it he will say make me stop or take me to court and the problem is in court we have very unpredictable judges and justices as we saw with the john roberts ruling on obama care and that relief often times is not going to be there or the damage will already have been done by the time any objection is filed in court. >> you're right and i think the

modus operandi is i will try to do it the proper way but if i can't ten, yeah, i will rule by administrative law and also rule by executive order. we have seen is time and time again with immigration and healthcare and his response is if you don't like it sue me and we do. the biggest stimulus that the white house has brought is to lawyers and courts because he has kept them busy and they will be busy for decades trying to figure out and undo the bad that the president has done in overreaching his pow. >> laura: speaking as a recovering lawyer myself they don't need a stimulus for the most part. what would be bridge too far for him, though. even with the reelection which stunned a lot of republicans. we will win this with no problem, unemployment so high, we will win. what could he do that the american people say this is not what we voted nor for? a supercharged amnesty or some kind of supertax and all of the

economic development in the way of oil exploration in places like north dakota? would that be enough? >> if he can't get cap and trade through the congress he could do that and give blanket amnesty as part of the resolution to immigration. >> laura: that seems leak a gimme for mih him at this poin. >> they are not for blanket amnesty. halfway to citizenship which s different than what the president could do if he decided did i executive order to grant citizenship to people who should have been part of an overall comprehensive immigration reform for congress. >> laura: what is going to backfire is the gun control thing. when you look at what dianne feinstein is wanting and start looking at her website, that is the kind of thing that i think is biting off a little more than you can chew and using a crisis, not letting a

crisis go to waste. let's take on the gun control issue. >> i think there will be an effort to pass more reasonable gun laws than what we have today. i don't know what it will look like. the president has a committee looking at it led by joe biden. >> laura: another biden committee. isn't he still tracking the stimulus? that is the last thing he was in charge of tracking was the stimulus bill. the summer of recovery. >> on this and many other issues a question of how does the republican house react? >> laura: he will take it to the people and do the perpetual campaign on that. >> plenty more ahead as "the factor" moves along. a newspaper facing intense criticism as one blogger tries to get even with the paper. supreme court justice sonia sotomayor hands another setback sotomayor hands another setback to the contraception with the spark cash card from capital one,

sven gets great rewards for his small business!

how does this thing work? oh, i like it! [ garth ] sven's small business earns 2% cash back on every purche, everday! woo-hoo!!! so that's ten security gators, right? put them on my spark card! why settle for less? testing hot tar... great sinesses deserve great rewards! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? here's your invoice. >> laura: in the second unresolved problem segment as i mentioned in the talking points memo, sonia sotomayor rejected a request for an injunction that would have temporarily blocked the obama administration mandating coverage of emergency contraception. while the lawsuit can move forward this is a big blow to defenders of religious freedom. joining us is the chief council for the american center for law and justice and from tampa,

attorney chip merlin. gentlemen, let's keep this understandable for the viewers so they get what is going on here. we'll start with you, jay. this was the hobby lobby stores, a chain of art and crafts stores, happens to be owned by the green family. they are evangelical christians and their problem is with the mandating of coverage for the so-called morning after pill or week after pill that does prevent an egg from attaching to a woman in a womb and they are against that, that is against their religious conscience and they wanted relief because the lower court said we can't h help you here. the suit, you don't get a religious exemption. now, what did the justice >> said we are not going to stay the proceedings and you will be subject to either providing the since come january 1 or paying for hobby lobby what will amount to a $1.3 million a day fine.

basically was not persuaded that they would carry the day, that the religious exemption should apply here. the tragedy i think in this is the court could have easily held things in abeyance. the government was not going to fall over this. obama care doesn't fall oh he vert h healthcare mandate but would have protected while the case is fully litigated the religious freedom rights of the owners of hobby lobby to protect their religious conscience. unfortunately, the justice today, her deneyial in four pages basically said sorry i don't see it and therefore you will pay the penalty or provide the insurance whether you you like it or not and i think she missed an opportunity to put it on hold pending a pull disposition of the case and frankly i don't see where there would have been any harm in that whatsoever. obama care would have not fallen over it. >> laura: wouldn't that have been the least destructive way of going about this for the justice and doesn't this signal real trouble for those business

owners in the united states who they are are not churches mind you but they have real beliefs and they do not allow them to participate in providing the coverage for the abort a patient drugs. why is their religious liberty any less real than the religious liberty of the muslim inmate who the justice said should be given ramadan meals in prison? he had religious liberty. why not the green family. >> elwith, of course, religious liberties are very important and all judges believe that and everybody in the united states believes it. in this particular case hobby lobby is a for profit corporation it makes money. the owners decided to take the fruits of a for profit corporation but that corporation now wants to not have the responsibilities of the law so they want the fruits and benefits of making money but don't want to have the obligations that for profit corporations have. corporations don't have freedom of religion.

corporations aren't going to go to heaven and hell. they have no soul. whatsoever the owners don't get me wrong the owners have such rights. >> they are the company. >> laura: hoohold on. you are saying this is a standing question. if the greens had filed the lawsuit as individuals and not on behalf of the company that provides the insurance they would have a meritorious claim is that what you are saying? >> it is the corporation that is paying the tax not the owners and you can imagine the anarchy and the practical consequences if all for profit corporations closely held by corporations to have the owners say we don't have is to pay this particular tax because it is against our religion. >> a measure that directly contradicts their religious views and beliefs. go ahead. >> don't you you love that now it is a tax. when it was argued to the supreme court nobody wanted to say the tax word and now, of course, it as tax. here is the problem with chip's

argument. of course, the corporation is owned by the greens and they are the ones providing the insurance and they object to providing an insurance plan that violates their sincerely held religious blow beliefs. if we start cutting off freedom of rehe lidgeen because it is a company owned by individuals why wouldn't the same apply to churches? a lot of churches are incorporated. you will say not for profit versus for profit. i don't see where the first amendment to the united states constitution says it only applies to certain entities. it doesn't. and the idea that congress here and through the president's plan has burdened the religious exercise of hobby lobby to the point where they are compelled to violate their conscience, i could not imagine the founders would have thought that to be a good idea. all they had to do is keep the status quo here. keep it status quo. >> laura: chip, i want to ask you a question. the little sisters of the poor, i don't know if you are aware

of this order of nuns they are among the most beautiful people. yoi support them and my radio list willenners support them. i know people from all political backgrounds contribute to them and they work with people that are frankly foregotten by society. they he said that they will be forced to shut their homes down in the united states if this exemption is as narrowly drawn as it currently is for this particular mandate. this rule. it is not central to obama care. inot central to the president's mission. they will go out of business. they can't do it. do they also not qualify for the religious exemption an order of nuns? >> there are a number of cases right now, where are pending are very important cases as to which organizations are going to call tie with respect to the exemptions provided. the catholic church was provided this particular exemption specifically by the president and congress. >> not catholic universities.

>> what about the nuns? do they get the exemption? >> it will be fought all the way through and four judges in a conservative western district oklahoma judge appointed by george bush first ruled that they probably are not going to win. >> laura: i mean i don't think that is a very strong argument. so i appreciate it, guys. we are out of time. the relief from the courts i don't think is going to come on this. didn't come originally and i don't think it will come again but we appreciate it. when we come back a blogger retaliates against a new york newspaper that published gun owner info. >> and heartbreak for american families after the russian president tells them they are not likely going to be able to

the o'reilly factor tore. the number one cable news show for 12 years running. >> laura: thanks for staying with us. i'm laura ingram in for bill o'reilly. the follow-up segment. the journal news is facing intense criticism after the outfit posted a map on its website showing the names and addresses of local gun permit holders. now, a very fun fly blogger has turn ited the tables on the paper names and addresses of the journal news publisher and reporter who wrote the story and several other members of the paper

staff. joining us from dallas, the author of the book 50 things liberals love to hate and first amendment attorney lawrence walters. i must say i smiled when i learned about what the blogger did and mad that i didn't think of it first. good for the goose good for the gander gallagher? the move to publish the names of the gun permit holders set the blogosphere on fire and twitter. trying to intimidate the people clearly who are lawful gun other thans. go ahead. >> i understand the merits of his argument, i think it is an ugly business to start getting into publishing people's personal addresses injuries the blogger is right and pointing out the hypocrisy of what the anti-gun zeal lots are are trying to do. we should have learned something from stalkers and people who can show up on somebody's door step. surely there is a way to argue the issue on the merits. the anti-gun nuts are only using newtown as an opportunity

to advance their agenda. i don't think it is as real good idea for our side meaning the prosecond amendment side to go crawling around in the gutter with those guys and do the same thing. i think it is a very bad business. >> argue the point on the merits. don't get into the game of publishing names. >> that's right. >> laura: well, you're nice. let's go to mr. walters here. what is the deal here? is there anything wrong with doing that that? i mean look privacy is privacy and public figures we want privacy but in the end if someone wants to find out where you live they can find out where you live but the gun issue is different because that is not readily available. you to hunt around and get a foia request of some sort to the state and find out where the guns are. the newspaper editors are not happy here. >> there is two aspects to the debate. one s reall s legally was it lt

do this were any laws broken. the first amendment would protect the right to publish the names on both sides. while the information might require digging it is public information and released in response to a foia request. it is readily available public information. the first amendment freedom of the press would protect that. there s also the ethical issue. was it responsible for either side to do it. just because you have information doesn't necessarily mean that you should publish it. journalistic ethics should have come into play and cooler heads should have prevailed. we don't need to allow both sides to ratchet this up and use the newtown shootings as a means to create further divide between the two sides on the gun debate. >> it might have been better for the blogger to say how would you like it if your names are published. we have your names and addresses. that is how i would have done it on twin cities. make a threat. >> but we will not release them

because we have ethics and you don't. >> we could say we have access to it and two could play that game but let's not actually play that game. now, a bunch of people vulnerable and exposed to any people out there. this is a bad die. >> a good point. >> this is not surprising. those who have a deep commitment to the second amendment are concerned when they start look at the details of dianne feinstein's bill. one of the original authors of the original assault weapons ban in 1994 and her website has a number of different points outlining what she is going to do with her new legislation and it goes quite a bit beyond the original assault weapons ban which didn't really have that much of an effect on gun crime in the united states. so people are very worried and they are worried about fingerprinting and gun registries and the rest. they are are concerned so it is no surprise, is it,

mr. walters, that this kind of thing would happen. people are very mad about this. >> this -- the shootings have sparked outrage on both sides. >> laura: both sides. >> yeah, both sides and that is why you see the kind of outrageous publications coming out and it is not the end of it unfortunately. it would be nice if we could take a down a notch and have a reasoned debate on what would best protect kids. >> laura: liberals don't want to listen to facts on gun crime. they need to read the studies and understand there have been professors that have been fired like professor baleil for fabricating information on gun facts. >> remember what rahm emanuel once said. they never want to let a crisis go to waste. they are trying to use this to advance an agenda and it is pathetic. >> laura: bingo. >> the u.s. government releasing thousands of illegal aliens instead of deporting

them. and vladimir putin signals his support for banning all adoption of russian children by americans. what does that say about the future of u.s./russian relations? we are coming back. want to know what i did in the last five hours? i played a round of golf. then i read a book while teaching myself how to play guitar; ran ten miles while knitting myself a sweater; jumped out of a plane. finally, i became a ping pong master while recording my debut album. how you ask? with 5-hour energy. i get hours of energy now -- no crash later. wait to see the next five hours.

>> laura: in the factor investigation segment tonight. since 2008 the federal government has released about 8500 criminal illegal aliens because their home countries wouldn't take them back. so you can't deport some one it seems to no where. instead of keeping them locked up they are is set free to roam around our country. recently the boston globe ran an article entitled many freed criminals avoid deportation and strike again. joining us, maria who is the paper's immigration reporter. let's get to the story behind the headline. tellus is going on here? i think most folks watching this right now think wait a second, these people have committed crimes and they are in our country illegally and have committed crimes they should be sent back home. but their -- are they ultimately are released here and reporters meanwhile can't get information about who the people are or where they are?

>> the federal immigration oh o fixes will say that they require the cooperation of another country to deport somebody. so that country won't issue a travel document or passport they can't send them away and the supreme court said they can only hold immigrants so long before they deport them or they have to let them go. what we found is that immigration officials don't inform the public about the people they release back in the streets. and we also found they don't inform the vast majority of crime victims and that is a very serious issue and we had a case in new york where a woman who believed her attacker was in china in fact was able to move into her building in new york, stalk her and murder her two weeks later. >> this was chen, was it not, who was. >> exactly. >> back in 2006 was released back into the united states. and it as horrific story. a 46-year-old woman. he shows up at her house or apartment and horrific act occurs. and we just did a segment on

now a newspaper in new york published the addresses of people who have gun permits and this is causing an outrage but in this case information that the public really needs to know, where are these people and who are they. could be they living in our community near us. especially if you were one of the victims of an illegal imcrime. they are left to fend for themselves unless someone shows up on your doorstep and then it is too late. >> and immigration has a victim note fection program but it is very little known and we found that there are only right now a few hundred people involved in it. and that -- and there are thousands of immigrants who are either see deported or released every year and those are a lot of victims not getting notified of this. and victims like -- >> laura: just so people understand this. this is because the criminal aliens were not tried in the united states and actually went to jail, they are just in the immigration court system. is that how it works?

>> well, oft one criminals they start in the criminal system and then they are after their sentence is up they are is sent to immigration where they disappear. and in the criminal system it is all public where the arrest is a public record, the detention is public and the outcome is public. no matter when you want to look at it but in the immigration system it is private to protect the immigrant's privacy. immigration is the subject of such national debate but the public knows very little about how it works. and the arrests are secret in immigration. the detentions are secret. and if they release someone that is not information that immigration officials believe the public has a right to know in most cases. and we found that -- >> laura: it is like because you want -- once they do their time then they have to be sent home but the country won't take them and so then we just release them. i think most people are completely unaware of this. thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. directly ahead, heartbreak for

american families as they are told that russia will likely stop all u.s. adoptions. what is behind 2

>> laura: in the personal story segment tonight. dozens of american families are suffering in an agonizing him bow tonight after russian lawmakers passed a bill that would ban them from adopting russian children. the russians are retaliating against the u.s. for an american law punishing russian citizens accused of violating human rights. they will not be able to come to the u.s. or own assets here. more than 60,000 russian children have been adopted by american families since 1992. two of them are are mine, little boys. and right the now, dozens of kids are in the middle of the adoption process. >> with what this would do is prevent children from growing up in a family environment of happiness, love and

understanding. it is russian children who would be harmed by this measure. >> joining us now from new york studios are robert and kim summers who were scheduled to pick up their child in january. mr. and mrs. summers, it is heartbreaking and the first i saw of this a couple of weeks ago and this was brewing, i feared the worst. tell us where you are in your process and what is going through your minds right now? >> well, we are actually -- we have booked our flights. we were supposed to return to moscow on the 13th of january to peck up our son who is three hours outside of moscow in a baby house and on 12/12/12 we were blessed and officially adopted our son who we have named preston mackey summers

and we were told that the ruling has changed and we were fully aware that we would have to now wait 30 days to actually bring preston home. and we were perfectly fine with that. and we have done everything that the russian government has requested of us. >> laura: of course. >> we have done parenting classes. we have traveled back and forth in country which, by the way, has been a fabulous experience for us. and we have just been welcomed by the russian people. >> laura: what is the status now? are you being told anything? are you going to be able to pick up your little boy? >> we haven't heard nothing as of late. if we are even going to go back to russia on the 12th. it is really if they sign this bill i don't know if we will ever get to see this child

again. >> laura: i have two little boys dmitry and nikolai from the moscow region and i have been through the process. background checks and home studies. >> two years. >> a long process. i met a lot of great people and care givers do their best in most